PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering, MCL 750.110, and he was
sentenced to eighteen months? to ten years? imprisonment. This case stems from a break-in that
occurred at the Greater Love Temple Church. A camcorder was stolen from the pastor?s office.
Defendant appeals as of right, and we affirm.
Defendant first argues that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence for a rational
trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the charged crime.
Specifically, defendant asserts that the prosecution has failed to prove that defendant was the
person who committed this crime. We disagree. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,
this Court views the evidence de novo in the light most favorable to the prosecution and
determines whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Johnson, 460 Mich 720, 723; 597 NW2d 73 (1999).
All conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the prosecution. People v Herbert, 444
Mich 466, 474; 511 NW2d 654 (1993), overruled on different grounds People v Lemmon, 465
Mich 625 (1998). Circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences that arise from the
evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime. People v Carines, 460
Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Questions of credibility and intent should be left to the
trier of fact to resolve. People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 506; 597 NW2d 864 (1999).
At trial, the prosecution introduced a substantial amount of evidence indicating that
defendant was the perpetrator of the break-in with which he was charged. Two eyewitnesses
testified that they saw defendant standing near the church holding the camcorder. This was soon
after one of the men heard a noise in the church basement and saw a flashlight beam shine on a
wall. When he was spotted outside, defendant made a threatening remark and then rode off on a
bicycle with the camcorder. The two men followed defendant, who eventually dropped the
camcorder in a yard. The camcorder was subsequently recovered by police. Taking all of this

-2-
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and bearing in mind that circumstantial
evidence and the reasonable inferences arising from the evidence can constitute satisfactory
proof, we conclude that the prosecution presented evidence sufficient to justify a rational trier of
fact in finding that defendant committed the crime with which he was charged beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Defendant also argues that the prosecutor denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial
when he made certain statements in his rebuttal argument that shifted the burden of proof to
defendant. Again, we disagree. Because defendant did not preserve this issue, review is under
the test set forth in Carines, supra at 763, which requires that for relief to be possible there must
have been plain error that affected substantial rights. Moreover, in the context of alleged
prosecutorial misconduct, generally reversal is not required where a curative instruction could
have alleviated any prejudicial effect resulting from prosecutorial misconduct. People v Callon,
256 Mich App 312, 329-330; 662 NW2d 501.
Prosecutorial-misconduct issues are decided on a case-by-case basis, and the reviewing
court must examine the pertinent portion of the record and evaluate a prosecutor?s remarks in
context. People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 586; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). A prosecutor may
not comment on a defendant?s failure to testify or present evidence. People v Abraham, 256
Mich App 265, 273; 662 NW2d 836 (2003). However, ?a prosecutor?s argument that
inculpatory evidence is undisputed does not constitute improper comment.? Callon, supra at
331. Moreover, otherwise improper prosecutorial remarks might not require reversal if they
address issues raised by defense counsel. People v Jones, 468 Mich 345, 353; 662 NW2d 376
(2003).
In the present case, the prosecutor?s challenged remarks simply argued that the
inculpatory evidence identifying defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime was
undisputed. Moreover, defendant?s sole defense was that the prosecution had not presented
sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was defendant who committed the
charged crime. As a result, the prosecutor?s statements were responsive to the issues raised by
defense counsel in his closing argument. Furthermore, the trial court instructed the jury that
defendant was not required to present any evidence at trial, that attorney statements did not
constitute evidence, that a defendant is presumed innocent and that the prosecution must prove
each element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, defendant has failed
to establish plain error affecting substantial rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Patrick M. Meter